America’s Future Foundation held an intimate briefing with a leading Supreme Court expert, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor, Cato Supreme Court Review, on Monday, April 18, 2016, at the University Club of Chicago.
A government taking occurs when the regulatory strictures placed on a piece of property so limit its use that it is stripped of economic viability. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City is the leading case in the Supreme Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence.
After months of debate and public comments, President Obama’s controversial Clean Power Plan (CPP) was issued in August 2015 and published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. But that is hardly the end of the story. Instead the saga is just beginning—with the ending to be written sometime in 2017 and the outcome highly dependent on who resides in the White House.
Although we often hear about distinctive American features such as apple pie, baseball, and freedom of speech, the single greatest characteristic of the American way is the willingness to provide opportunity for all. Unlike its European predecessors, the United States was always meant to be a place where your standing in the world isn’t determined by who your parents are but rather by an unrelenting spirit.
The EPA is radically redefining “navigable waterways” to include 3% more of the nation’s water – and it’s not drawing any corresponding limitations on itself. In addition to lakes, rivers, bays and creeks, the EPA is coming from your drainage ditches, your reservoirs and yes, your big puddles.
Will this FCC legal team learn from the legal mistakes of their predecessors and ensure the FCC has a thorough and a sufficient legal record to justify their legal theories, given that the FCC already has failed twice in crafting legal net neutrality regulations in Comcast v. FCC in 2010 and again in Verizon v. FCC in 2014?
Google has privacy clay feet. The NSA and Big Data may also, since they are relying on many of the same outdated legal assumptions as Google. In the last few months, both the U.S. Supreme Court and European authorities have made new baseline privacy decisions that have greatly strengthened individuals’ right to privacy. As a result, they’ve also exposed and heightened Google’s massive privacy liabilities.
Now that the dust has settled on the Supreme Court’s 2014 session, we can look at the decisions and conclude that the Administration received a serious smack down. Two big cases got most of the news coverage: Hobby Lobby and the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) recess appointments. In both cases, the Administration lost. At the core of both, is the issue of the Administration’s overreach.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure. Yet that protection is being slowly eroded away. Thanks to the “War of Drugs” and the “War on Terror” government, at the state and federal level, has worked alongside the courts to gradually diminish the range and force of the protections that were meant to be inviolable rights of all citizens.
April seems to be the month in which the Supreme Court devotes itself to decisions that have no basis in real science and can do maximum damage to the economy. Invariably, the cases are brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and are decided in its favor.
An opportunity to move back toward reinstituting the protections of economic freedoms (and away from the unbridled deference paid to police power legislation) has presented itself in the Great State of Louisiana.
This video is from July, but it has not lost any of its relevance. Taped at the Union League Club of Chicago, two leading attorneys debate the wisdom of the[…]
The landmark case that overturned key components of McCain-Feingold — namely, bans on campaign contributions by businesses and unions — has been trickling down in challenges to similar state laws[…]